March 17, 2008

An argument for a zero impact culture

"The idea of zero impact ought to be non-controversial. It is simple
common sense that practices which are unsustainable cannot continue,
and we know that it is true that propping up unsustainable practices
with non-renewable resources has even more dramatic consequences. And
we are currently growing rapidly less sustainable, and using more and
more non-renewable to keep the ecological consequences at bay. This
must stop. All of this is just plain speaking, and ought to be obvious
to any informed observer...

"...I, for one, do not believe that we must be worse off for this transition. Under most models, the economy will continue strong growth even if we push hard
on reducing emissions -- indeed, many of the things we need to do will
actually improve productivity, more than paying for themselves. (This
is true, by the way, not just for carbon emissions, but for toxics,
waste reduction, water conservation, ecosystem service preservation,
greater access to education and health care and host of other
sustainability priorities). On pure GDP terms, making this transition
quickly may be a huge winner.

"And, of course, GDP isn't everything. There are a whole host of human
security, moral happiness and quality of life questions that tackling
this crisis will help us answer. If we move quickly, we could not only
have staved off disaster by mid-century, but built a profoundly better
world. And that is far more than nothing."

Yet another voice extolling the fact that making the planet happier will make the people happier.

----------

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.

Comments

"The idea of zero impact ought to be non-controversial. It is simple
common sense that practices which are unsustainable cannot continue,
and we know that it is true that propping up unsustainable practices
with non-renewable resources has even more dramatic consequences. And
we are currently growing rapidly less sustainable, and using more and
more non-renewable to keep the ecological consequences at bay. This
must stop. All of this is just plain speaking, and ought to be obvious
to any informed observer...

"...I, for one, do not believe that we must be worse off for this transition. Under most models, the economy will continue strong growth even if we push hard
on reducing emissions -- indeed, many of the things we need to do will
actually improve productivity, more than paying for themselves. (This
is true, by the way, not just for carbon emissions, but for toxics,
waste reduction, water conservation, ecosystem service preservation,
greater access to education and health care and host of other
sustainability priorities). On pure GDP terms, making this transition
quickly may be a huge winner.

"And, of course, GDP isn't everything. There are a whole host of human
security, moral happiness and quality of life questions that tackling
this crisis will help us answer. If we move quickly, we could not only
have staved off disaster by mid-century, but built a profoundly better
world. And that is far more than nothing."

Yet another voice extolling the fact that making the planet happier will make the people happier.